New Limits on Gravitational Waves From the Big Bang

by Nancy Atkinson on August 19, 2009

Artists concept of graviational waves. Credit: NASA

Artists concept of graviational waves. Credit: NASA


The only way to know what the Universe was like at the moment of the Big Bang requires analysis of gravitational waves created when the Universe began. Scientists working with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) say their initial investigations of these gravitiation waves have turned up nothing. But that’s a good thing. Not detecting the waves provides constraints about the initial conditions of the universe, and narrows the field of where we actually do need to look in order to find them.

Much like it produced the cosmic microwave background, the Big Bang is believed to have created a flood of gravitational waves — ripples in the fabric of space and time. From our current understanding, gravitational waves are the only known form of information that can reach us undistorted from the beginnings of the Universe. They would be observed as a “stochastic” or random background, and would carry with them information about their violent origins and about the nature of gravity that cannot be obtained by conventional astronomical tools. The existence of the waves was predicted by Albert Einstein in 1916 in his general theory of relativity.

Analysis of data taken over a two-year period, from 2005 to 2007, yields that the stochastic background of gravitational waves has not yet been discovered. But the nondiscovery of the background, described in a new paper in the August 20 Nature, offers its own brand of insight into the universe’s earliest history.

“Since we have not observed the stochastic background, some of these early-universe models that predict a relatively large stochastic background have been ruled out,” said Vuk Mandic, assistant professor at the University of Minnesota and the head of the group that performed the analysis. “We now know a bit more about parameters that describe the evolution of the universe when it was less than one minute old.”

According to Mandic, the new findings constrains models of cosmic strings, objects that are proposed to have been left over from the beginning of the universe and subsequently stretched to enormous lengths by the universe’s expansion; the strings, some cosmologists say, can form loops that produce gravitational waves as they oscillate, decay, and eventually disappear.

“Since we have not observed the stochastic background, some of these early-universe models that predict a relatively large stochastic background have been ruled out,” said Mandic. “If cosmic strings or superstrings exist, their properties must conform with the measurements we made—that is, their properties, such as string tension, are more constrained than before.”

This is interesting, he says, “because such strings could also be so-called fundamental strings, appearing in string-theory models. So our measurement also offers a way of probing string-theory models, which is very rare today.”

The analysis used data collected from the LIGO interferometers in Hanford, Wash., and Livingston, La. Each of the L-shaped interferometers uses a laser split into two beams that travel back and forth down long interferometer arms. The two beams are used to monitor the difference between the two interferometer arm lengths.

The next phase of the project, called Advanced LIGO, will go online in 2014, and be 10 times more sensitive than the current instrument. It will allow scientists to detect cataclysmic events such as black-hole and neutron-star collisions at 10-times-greater distances.

The Nature paper is entitled “An Upper Limit on the Amplitude of Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background of Cosmological Origin.”

Source: EurekAlert


  • ILOVETHESTAR

    Pvt.Pantzov
    I rarely if ever saw you post before-before you critisize people here, it would be nice if you had post much in the past. Remember the reason WHY registering is preferable than free posting-it keeps out most of the fakes and flakes and downright vandalizers and spammers!!!!
    To ALL the TRUE knowledgeable and intelligent posters who posts concerning the theme of this thread, ElroyJetson hopes this thread will fall off the site soon with newer threads. His sources of research concerning UFOs IMHO, shows me he is nothing but a flake!!!!!! Too much MIND-ALTERING-DRUGS hasaffected his reasoning and he can’t accept reality!!!!! Such a flake can’t be bargain with nor reasoned with and I will not waste my time with fools.!!!!!
    I thank the true knowledgeable and intelligent persons who posts on this site because I’ve learned alot and always learning more

  • ElroyJetson

    WTF did I do to deserve all the namecalling and accusations? I merely provided another side to the UFO reporting story and have explained why those “sources” were used. I even proposed the explanation of sunlight reflecting off an asteroid being the reason for Lovell’s santa claus transmission, answering my own question, “what else could he have seen besides an alien craft?’, while everyone else just hurled insults. I even tried to help another commenter decide if what they saw was an SR71. On the comet story I thought there might be a connection with what MESSENGER discovered on Mercury and raised that quesiton. Here, I’ve just asked what if LIGO doesn’t detect gravity waves, are there alternatives to relativity and are they viable? One of the scientists involved even said that if they don’t detect any gravity waves with the enhanced sensitivity it might be time to rethink General Relativity. I’m just curious what a viable alternative might be if that comes to pass. History, that’s my degree btw, has proven that when ideas, or those who even invoke their names, are attacked with such rage and hatred, that it’s usually a sign of defense to a perceived threat, the threat being to their worldview. So I’ve learned that those ideas are at least worth checking out.

    I’ve tried to be amicable and reasonable, but in just two days I’ve been called a fool, flake, druggie, joke, ignorant jackass, and now the “good cops” want to suck me into more abuse?

    Get bent.

  • DrFlimmer

    @ElroyJetson

    WTF did I do to deserve all the namecalling and accusations?

    You mentioned PC. And since we had some very upsetting debates with other people talking about that, many here get upset right when they see it. This name-calling is not specifically meant for you, everyone calling PC a viable alternative to GR will face such insults. That does not mean that I support such a behaviour – I think it’s bad and leads to nowhere.

    By now GR has passed all the tests without a flaw. Indeed, a non-detection of gravitational waves would be a major flaw and one would have to consider alternatives. But two things need to be taken into account here:

    1) Double-pulsars (I think the Hulse-Taylor-pulsar is one) do behave as if they were sending out gravitational waves. They circle each other just like GR predicts. This is, of course, only very indirect evidence for GW, but it is evidence nontheless.

    2) Viable alternatives to GR. I’m sorry. But everything I have seen of PC tells me that PC does not belong to such alternatives. Most things I have seen rely on outdated data and simulations (from 1995 or earlier). The WMAP data strongly supports “mainstream” cosmology. I don’t know how PC accounts for the CMB and its fluctuations. Everytime I asked about this topic I got strange answers like hydrogen in the Milky Way or even the Heliopause. Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
    There are other examples in PC/EU which are at least weired.
    There are, of course, other things where PC/EU-arguments seem to be reasonable. Sometimes it’s a tough task to actually find the problem, which can arouse in very different topics.
    The most fundamental thing that has never been answered by our “PC/EU-friends” is the simple questions of the power source. In order to keep a plasma running you need a power source. Otherwise it will cool off with the time and finally all the atoms will recombine and that’s it – no more plasma (that was happening when the CMB was created). They only came up with the counter-question “what powers the BigBang, something out of nothing” and similar things. The answer is simple: They normally had very few, if at all, grasps of quantum mechanics.
    For the very beginning of the universe we need a theory of quantum gravity, which science still lacks. This is also the reason why scientists know that GR is not the whole answer. GR is incompatible with quantum mechanics. That is a problem.
    So, yes, we need an “alternative” to GR, but it must be a quantum mechanical theory and not something like PC.

    This is my position after 4 years of studying physics and after 8 month of debating about PC/EU/PU.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    @ElroyJetson

    WTF did I do to deserve all the namecalling and accusations?

    Anyone supporting plasma cosmology or radical electric universe mumbo-jumbo in any form is a total jackass.

    Clear enough?

  • ElroyJetson

    drflimmer, nereid thanks, but no thanks. This comment board has got serious issues that the mods or admins are obviously not aware of, willing to deal with, or even worse, they’re OK with it.
    My ten year is more mature than this entire group combined, btw.

    buhbye :(

  • ND

    ElroyJetson,

    Sorry to hear that but I think you would have found Nereid, DrFlimmer and a few others reasonable people to discuss science with.

  • ND

    If ElroyJetson is still reading this thread, I tried to post it earlier and it appears to not have gone through. Spamm filtering? 3rd attempt. I’m leaving out the URLs which I’ll post if this goes through.

    Regarding ElroyJetson’s comments in the UFO thread:
    “Schirra was the first to use the santa claus code, I believe, when he encountered more than one craft following along with his Mercury module while in orbit.”

    So I looked googled for “Schirra santa claus” and came up with the following page:

    link 1.

    Basically Schirra was playing a practical joke! He very seriously reported to Houston that he was seeing a large command module with eight smaller ones to get people’s attention. Well here’s what was said:

    ” “We have an object, looks like a satellite going from north to south, probably in polar orbit…. Looks like he might be going to re-enter soon…. You just might let me pick up that thing…. I see a command module and eight smaller modules in front. The pilot of the command module is wearing a red suit.”

    Then ground controllers heard the strains, both familiar and otherworldly, of “Jingle Bells,” played on a harmonica backed byâwhat else?âminiature sleigh bells.”

    He was on Gemini 6 on an in orbit rendevouz mission with Gemini 7. Guess who was on Gemini 7? Jim Lovell!

    So what’s more plausible, Lovell referring back to the Gemini mission when he was on Apollo 8, or alien spacecraft?

    Google++

    According to the following page, Schirra was quite the practical joker:

    link 2.

    Any thoughts on this ElroyJetson?

  • IVAN3MAN

    ND:

    I tried to post it earlier and it appears to not have gone through. Spamm filtering? 3rd attempt. I’m leaving out the URLs which I’ll post if this goes through.

    Try converting the ‘offending’ URL into a TinyURL version, then post that modified link.

    N.B. Post only one link at a time, otherwise it will get held up in “comment awaiting moderation” like, er… forever!

  • ND

    link 1: tinyurl.com/lhvdkd

  • ND

    link 2: tinyurl.com/3d76jc

  • ND

    Another thing about code words over voice communications, it’s silly. It would be much more secure to send a code through a data channel where it would be meaningless to anyone who catches such communications between spacecraft and Earth.

    “Gee what else could it have been” indeed.

  • Jon Hanford

    Thanks, ND, for sleuthing out that quote from Wally Schirra :) . Certainly, members of the astronaut corps would try to inject some humor into their missions in an attempt to lighten up the situation. It’s rather easy to see how this exchange might be misconstrued after more than 40+ years. This practical joke morphed into a new (and entirely unintended) meaning. Sh*t happens, and this is not intended to be critically aimed at ElroyJetson. Hopefully, EJ might catch this latest development and learn something about the context of Wally Schirra’s comments (I know I did). Again, thanks ND for this interesting trivia from the heady days of the Gemini and Apollo programs.

    On a related note, recently PhysOrg.com reported on a new approach to quantum gravity, which included this interesting note: “Petr Ho?ava at Lawrence Berkeley Lab proposed …. a model for quantum gravity that has received widespread interest, in no small part because it is one of the few models that could be experimentally tested.” The article goes on to say: “Lu et al.’s paper is an important contribution to testing the Ho?ava model and shows that a good deal of work remains to understand its full implications.” The article itself (with a link to a free 4 page paper on the theory) can be found here: http://www.physorg.com/news170333445.html .

    I am curious how the more mathematically inclined readers here at UT think about this new(er) proposal and just how viable it may be :)

  • Jon Hanford

    @ ND and IVAN3MAN: I posted the first paragraph above (w-no links) earlier today (~7 hours ago) on this thread and it, too, disappeared. Possibly the problem is NOT related to including a URL in a post. Administrators?

  • ND

    IVAN3MAN,

    www facepalm org

  • DrFlimmer

    Thanks, Jon Hanford, for the paper. I am impressed that I would be able to actually understand the equations. But it would need a lot more than just reading it.
    I think, Lawrence B. Crowell is the one who can give us some helpful comments, is he not? ;)

    Btw: ND, nice story! It seems that flying through space is not just “do your job and shut up”. Sometimes it can be funny, too! :)

  • IVAN3MAN

    Jon Hanford:

    I posted the first paragraph above (w-no links) earlier today (~7 hours ago) on this thread and it, too, disappeared. Possibly the problem is NOT related to including a URL in a post.

    Possibly the problem was related to that word in the fifth line, of the first paragraph, with the omitted vowel. ;-)

  • http://www.plasmaresources.com/ davesmith_au

    Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don’t advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We’ll delete any comments that break these policies.

    What a joke the majority of posters here, regulars I might add, make of this policy.

    Y’all should be ashamed.

    Cheers, Dave Smith.

  • ND

    Dave Smith,

    Rally? Seriously?

    “Be nice and brief. Don’t advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories.”
    That applied to Anaconda more than anyone else here.

    There was a lot rational discussion involving actual science and PC/EU ideas. How come we didn’t see you in those? Was it out of your league?

Previous post:

Next post: